AT Class under powered!

lonelyjew · Post by **lonelyjew** » 2006-04-07 12:07

solipsism wrote:Just a comment really. But only for gameplay's (re:fun level) sake, if your playing as AT an entire battle, once you kill a few armored vehicles, there isnt much else for you to do, due to the respawn time of the vehicles. This is especially true if you are staying back in a defensive pos.

This mod focuses on realism. Also, I've had plenty of fun playing a round as an AT before. You just need a good squad backing you up. Though you don't kill everything that walks in front of you, you still must sneak into enemy flag areas, help cap, and occasion kill the tank trying to get it's flag back. Killing infantry is just one aspect of the game, in prmm at least there are tons of ways to have fun without killing every few seconds.

Post by **NikovK** » 2006-04-07 13:22

Woah... give them MP-7's or other PDWs! Yes, no, maybe?

Redneckman · Post by **Redneckman** » 2006-04-07 13:34

M14! lol

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2006-04-07 15:03

Just give the anti-tank an M249 and grenades. That'll balance things out.

Oh, and the ability to heal himself and revive others!

Lugubrum · Post by **Lugubrum** » 2006-04-08 12:29

Yeah that's a great idea Cerberus, they are too weak now.

Serious: I like how the AT class is now. I don't care if they are weak against infantry. The only problem is, people will use the AT rocket against infantry which is annoying...

Neuromante · Post by **Neuromante** » 2006-04-08 13:28

The thing I don't like about the AT guy right now is that there are too few targets for him. I mean, tanks and other stuff respawn time is too high. I hardly (read: never ever) see anyone being AT for a whole match. I wish they had more targets.

lonelyjew · Post by **lonelyjew** » 2006-04-08 15:59

No squad has ever forced me to be AT, I usually volunteer. Of course, I'm usually not it the whole round; in a good squad your squad mates usually take on the burden of being AT also. Though you don't get the satisfaction of helping your squad clear infantry, nothing is more satisfying then blowing up the tank that thought it would take out your whole team. Also, with the heavy mg's being very powerful now, having a rocket to take out a transport or FAV helps a lot and it also gives you plenty more targets. The best, though rare, thing is taking out a chopper who's pilot decided hovering for his gunner would be a good idea.

six7 · Post by **six7** » 2006-04-08 16:20

im glad the rifleman will have an AT variant. i will go AT for my squad, but usually i find myself just shooting transports or FAVs.

AznLB · Post by **AznLB** » 2006-04-08 16:24

lonelyjew wrote: The best, though rare, thing is taking out a chopper who's pilot decided hovering for his gunner would be a good idea.

Oooh, I love doing that, it gives me goosebumps.

Anyway, AT class right now is fine. The point is he's a dedicated Anti-Tank soldier, which is the only person in real life that would be carrying around a SRAW and 2 extra missles, and who's only job would be to kill tanks. It makes sense that he would only be able to carry a pistol, and being ristricted to a pistol insures he does his job of taking out tanks, not running around going gung-ho on infantry.

solipsism · Post by **solipsism** » 2006-04-08 20:31

Neuromante wrote:The thing I don't like about the AT guy right now is that there are too few targets for him. I mean, tanks and other stuff respawn time is too high. I hardly (read: never ever) see anyone being AT for a whole match. I wish they had more targets.

This is what im talking about... i hit 3,4 or 5 targets, and then theres nothing for a long time. I guess i can keep switching, but thats not very realistic if the angle is realism.

Ghost33 · Post by **Ghost33** » 2006-04-08 20:59

Lugubrum wrote:Yeah that's a great idea Cerberus, they are too weak now.

Serious: I like how the AT class is now. I don't care if they are weak against infantry. The only problem is, people will use the AT rocket against infantry which is annoying...

Well If they do that then the tanker that will come around the corner will be glad one of his troops caused the enemy to waste the rockets on him and not his tank.

~WPN~BjornLeorhals · Post by **~WPN~BjornLeorhals** » 2006-04-11 06:01

Even though I am sure you all know soo much more than I do about what an actual Marine would carry into combat (that was sarcasm) here are a couple of pictures I thought I should share w/ you.

In this one you can plainley see the guys magazine pouches, which as far anyone that has ever been in combat can tell you you wouldn't carry bullets you don't have a weapon to shoot them out of.

So where is his rifle you may ask.

It might be laying on the ground. as you can see in this picture.

Or slung across his back. If you look really closley you can see the buttstock of this guys rifle over his sholder.

The main thing is that any Marine worth his stripes will find a way (even if he is carrying alot of heavy AT rounds) to carry a rifle.

Also if you look at this picture that was put in as proof that AT gunners don't carry rifles you can see that this Marine is carrying the SMAW w/ his right hand which says to me that he is right handed (truthfully not sure if a SMAW can be fired left handed) and if that is true where is his holster? Shouldn't it be on his dominant side? And he has a bayonette and not a Ka-Bar. The Marine Corps is short supplied enough that they wouldn't give a new bayonette to a guy that dosn't need one.

I guess what I am trying to say is don't take 3 pictures and an old TM and say that because of that AT guys don't get rifles. Here is proof that at least some AT guys carry rifles.

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2006-04-11 10:54

Only the last one is in combat, rite?

~WPN~ Buggies · Post by **~WPN~ Buggies** » 2006-04-11 13:44

Isn't the last photo a stinger? But anyway Bjorn has a valid point. I think it's just rediculous to not give an AT gunner a rifle. What happens when the AT rounds are expended? He become kind of a third wheel. His role has changed from AT to infantry, and he has no means to support his new role.

Lazzars · Post by **Lazzars** » 2006-04-11 14:18

~WPN~ Buggies wrote:Isn't the last photo a stinger?

thats a stinger, the other thing is a SMAW

Gaz · Post by **Gaz** » 2006-04-11 14:52

~WPN~BjornLeorhals wrote:Even though I am sure you all know soo much more than I do about what an actual Marine would carry into combat (that was sarcasm) here are a couple of pictures I thought I should share w/ you.

In this one you can plainley see the guys magazine pouches, which as far anyone that has ever been in combat can tell you you wouldn't carry bullets you don't have a weapon to shoot them out of.

So where is his rifle you may ask.

It might be laying on the ground. as you can see in this picture.

Or slung across his back. If you look really closley you can see the buttstock of this guys rifle over his sholder.

The main thing is that any Marine worth his stripes will find a way (even if he is carrying alot of heavy AT rounds) to carry a rifle.

Also if you look at this picture that was put in as proof that AT gunners don't carry rifles you can see that this Marine is carrying the SMAW w/ his right hand which says to me that he is right handed (truthfully not sure if a SMAW can be fired left handed) and if that is true where is his holster? Shouldn't it be on his dominant side? And he has a bayonette and not a Ka-Bar. The Marine Corps is short supplied enough that they wouldn't give a new bayonette to a guy that dosn't need one.

I guess what I am trying to say is don't take 3 pictures and an old TM and say that because of that AT guys don't get rifles. Here is proof that at least some AT guys carry rifles.

The first images are of the Javelin system, which the British soldiers in the images above were testing for the MOD during it's trial period to asertain whether it would be introduced as an infantry AT weapon. The system is already in use with US Forces, and has been for a few years. It is a remarkable system, and it's one that my platoon is being re-roled to use exclusively. Just to let you know, we will ALWAYS carry our small arms, which would be the L85A2, with full war compliment of ammo. Raeson being, we are first and foremost infantry soldiers. But, we are a vehicle borne team, and usually dont have to man-pack the Javelin system around the countryside. Although, it does and will happen.

Another point is that as an infantry unit in Iraq, we man-packed LAW-94s about as an infantry AT weapon. As well as our bergens and full ammo scales for war.

~WPN~callum247 · Post by **~WPN~callum247** » 2006-04-11 17:38

The second image aint from the MOD. The soldier has a different helmet to british army ones, as you'll know. And his rifle is an M16 instead of an sa80. So if the american troops carry rifles in real life will they get em in game?

P.S. a bit off topic but do you have to be irish for the royal irish regiment gaz? Or irish decent?

tophdawg · Post by **tophdawg** » 2006-04-11 19:19

i dont know if you can do this but at units has two guys there one to help reload maby have a guy beside your charcter that is a npc and holds the rockets. also the at in 1942 had only a at missle and a pistol and a knife and a gernade so i think that it doesnt matter that much if your working a a squad an at unit should be safe.

WPN Shotgun · Post by **WPN Shotgun** » 2006-04-11 19:45

I really don't get the gest of the morality between game playing and reality combat....hell if we had weaponry like todays Military, no matter what Nationality, we would have beaten the socks off the N. Vietnamese, Laosians, and Cambodians, even with the support from Russia and China....but we didn't and we didn't win anything either, only over 55,000 confirmed dead, over 400,000 injured/mamed, and still over 600 MIA's....yet 30+ yrs later we repeat History.......I personally don't give a rat's hooter about correct weaponry on what kind of soldier, carrying how much ammo....get over it Gentlemen.....after all, it is only a GAME........If you want reality go to the Veterans Hospitals and talk to the War ridden, shell shocked, battle fatigued, emotionally duressed soldier, who came back differently from the way he went.......

I am one, I am a survivor of combat of the Asia's in 73 -75, been there done that, got the tattoo's the whole nine yards....It was not a Game...but a reality.........Shotgun....USN.. 73-75 Nam

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2006-04-11 20:16

Cerberus wrote:Last pic isn't a dedicated anti-armor specialist.

Last pic is a USMC assaultman (SMAW gunner).

As for the Javelin, TO&E says that the gunner in the team carries a rifle and the launcher, with both men carrying one rocket each.

Bjorn, if you state your credentials and can back them up, we'd be happy to read more of what you have to say.